Is Sullivan & Cromwell really that bad? Forum

[smaug]

At one of HYS, S&C has the highest yield outside of Wachtell and the elite litigation boutiques. While Skadden might not be as grade conscious as some of these other firms, Skadden is ever bit as good as Cravath/S&C/DPW.

do they have lowered hiring standards though (if so, it could just mean there are fewer cross offers for the HYS folks than there are for the T6 folks, as the T6 folks with S&C offers usually have something else on the table)

[Anonymous User]

At one of HYS, S&C has the highest yield outside of Wachtell and the elite litigation boutiques. While Skadden might not be as grade conscious as some of these other firms, Skadden is ever bit as good as Cravath/S&C/DPW.

do they have lowered hiring standards though (if so, it could just mean there are fewer cross offers for the HYS folks than there are for the T6 folks, as the T6 folks with S&C offers usually have something else on the table)

At one of HYS, S&C has higher hard hiring standards compared to Cravath/DPW and lower hard hiring standards compared to WLRK. I'm not sure if the post above refers to Columbia, where students opt for Cravath/DPW over S&C. This whole conversation is pointless. It's hard to argue that S&C is better than Cravath/DPW or worse based on student preferences at individual law schools, especially since preferences at different schools seem to differ.

[Anonymous User]

At one of HYS, S&C has the highest yield outside of Wachtell and the elite litigation boutiques. While Skadden might not be as grade conscious as some of these other firms, Skadden is ever bit as good as Cravath/S&C/DPW.

A bizarre number of YLS students opt for S&C in some summer classes, which is I presume what you're referencing, but this was not true at mine.

I agree skadden is absolutely on the same level in terms of quality, but thats not rly the conversation here I guess (this conversation is sort of perverse anyway)

Exactly. Two different, non-contradictory claims. Skadden's as good a firm as the others, but it's just not as selective as its "peer" firms. Whatever that means to you.

[Anonymous User]

As a GP alum from a while back (in house now), I feel obliged to come to the firm's defense, sort of. In hindsight, S&C is in some ways a remarkably easy place to work. Up front they tell you exactly what's expected of you, and you have as much chance as anyone else of delivering. If you're ever falling short you'll be informed in no uncertain terms; no subtle hints to decipher. If you don't want to do things their way, or just can't take it anymore, you have options (judging by the sheaves of departure memos). If what you're getting out of it is worth the cost and you want to stay a good number of years (as I did), you just keep grinding. There's no forced socializing; you don't have to pretend to be anyone's friend and they definitely won't pretend to be yours. You don't have to worry about politics as you might at a firm where partners are coming and going, or just squabbling. The people who succeed are those who do the work up to the firm's standards (=OCD-like attention to detail), and do a lot of it.

In other ways, S&C is a brutally hard place to work. I'd had this goofy idea that I'd have to stay late. As I learned, it's not possible to stay late when the regular business hours are 24/7. It's one thing to be in the office at 2AM on a weekend, quite another for there to be no sense of urgency to get out. They just have a way of settling in, almost as if there were nothing else going on in their lives (but that can't be). Worse than the hours for my constitution was the constant state of agitation I was in. In most jobs, even high powered professional ones, you have baseline normal working conditions punctuated by occasional deadlines, busy seasons and assorted emergencies and crises. At S&C everything you do every day is an emergency. The pressure is also the reason/pretext for the occasional toxicity, and you're expected to be an adult and suck it up (why they don't have to be adults and behave better, I suppose that's not a very adult question to ask). But most people are perfectly pleasant. Partners valued my opinions, and we had some intellectually stimulating, freewheeling conversations –- about work. Apart from that, there were some awkward silences. An emotionally austere office environment probably works best when you can get warmth, support or what have you from the other people in your life. If you're not seeing those people due to work demands, it can be depressing at times.

Overall it was probably a decent investment in human capital. The GP structure allowed me, with mostly highly specialized financial industry representations, to pitch myself to the nonfinancial sector as a corporate generalist. Now in my largely commercial law role, I find some of that financial experience very useful, albeit indirectly. While at S&C I had some control over the work I did and for whom, though not nearly as much control as one commenter upthread had. I made some valuable professional connections, internal and external. I was given a great deal of responsibility and learned a lot about law, business and general strategies for success. At best the work was far from mindless, and it was rewarding to master the considerable complexity of the deals they do. I just can't say I was a very happy person at the time.

[FlightoftheEarls]

First and foremost, S&C is a true leanly-staffed meritocracy. As a law clerk, I worked on project teams consisting of (i) a partner, a 7th/8th year associate, and me or (ii) a partner and me on 80%+ of my matters. I learned a lot from experienced lawyers and didn't have to runaround in circles because there were no third-year associates who couldn't grasp what's important telling me to do meaningless tasks.

Perhaps as a law clerk at Cravath/DPW/Skadden, you can always turn down projects staffed with mid-level associates, though I highly doubt those firms give you such level of flexibility.

I read these statements a couple times and don't really understand your point here. Are you really trying to suggest that juniors aren't regularly staffed on corporate deals with mid-levels? Are 3rd-6th years just sequestered from deals for a few years, or do junior associates suddenly become 7th/8th year associates? I don't get how this is supposed to be remotely true.

[lawlorbust]

I read these statements a couple times and don't really understand your point here. Are you really trying to suggest that juniors aren't regularly staffed on corporate deals with mid-levels? Are 3rd-6th years just sequestered from deals for a few years, or do junior associates suddenly become 7th/8th year associates? I don't get how this is supposed to be remotely true.

It's actually quite easy to imagine. Off the top of my head, it could be, for example, that -- as with 1st and 2nd years -- mid-levels also work exclusively with partners (without juniors or senior associates). Alternately, within his firm's more flexible staffing system, the poster might have preferenced lean staffing at the expense of other desirable features in his assignments.

[Mad Hatter]

Yes. Thx.

[FlightoftheEarls]

I read these statements a couple times and don't really understand your point here. Are you really trying to suggest that juniors aren't regularly staffed on corporate deals with mid-levels? Are 3rd-6th years just sequestered from deals for a few years, or do junior associates suddenly become 7th/8th year associates? I don't get how this is supposed to be remotely true.

It's actually quite easy to imagine. Off the top of my head, it could be, for example, that -- as with 1st and 2nd years -- mid-levels also work exclusively with partners (without juniors or senior associates). Alternately, within his firm's more flexible staffing system, the poster might have preferenced lean staffing at the expense of other desirable features in his assignments.

Sure, I definitely get that one can select deals with leaner staffing. Had plenty of deals staffed like that, and some types of corporate work (e.g., credit) lend themselves to that particularly well. That's a fair explanation.

But that also limits the types of transactions you're going to be working on. For example, if you want to do a strategic, buy-side M&A, the reality is that you're probably going to need both a mid-level and junior. If you don't have a mid-level, then that either means mid-levels don't get to do those deals or, if they do those deals with a partner only, they're also still handling the junior-level tasks (diligence, checklists, etc.) themselves. Neither of those options seems ideal tbh.

I'm probably over-parsing the statements, though. My b.

[Anonymous User]

As mentioned before, culture is heavily group specific. It's hard to define the culture of S&C as a whole. There are partners and senior associates who are great to work with; there are a few who are not good to work with. Personalities of associates run from the most extroverted former equity traders to the most soft-spoken HYS law review managing editors. Close to everyone I've met are polite.

One aspect about S&C that stood out was the straight-forwardness/transparency of the place. The firm does not hide the ball. Within the stub-year (first 3-4 months), which associates are favored becomes apparent (ones who consistently get staffed on the coolest matters, never get forced into doing tedious diligence/doc review on Fridays, and consistently get work when the firm is having a slow time and most first-years worrying about hours). And, even those favored/highest billing associates get direct constructive criticisms.